Slashdot Mirror
NZ Business Fined For Out-of-Date Website
Peter writes "A story reports that a restaurant in New Zealand has been fined NZ$3000 for failing to keep its website up to date. By having out-of-date menus and prices on its website, it has breached the Fair Trading Act, according to the New Zealand Commerce Commission."
The fact that it's on the Internet is moot; it's false advertising. Simply that.
This happened to my dad's small engineering company. He had the phrase "engineers" on the site, when in fact there was a single engineer (PE) and an EIT (engineer in training) who was weeks away from becoming a full-fledged engineer.
I think the state board of licensure fined him something around $50,000? Absolutely rediculous. Granted, the head of the board was the engineer for a competing company I believe, so there might've been other motivations... stupid small states.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
While the restaurant was clearly stupid for not doing anything even after being warned, I'm not at all convinced that commercial enterprises are (or should be) under an obligation to find and destroy all out of date promotional material. Which is essentially what this judgement amounts to.
Nice straw man. Nobody is saying the restaurant, or anybody else, should have to destroy old promo material.
Anyone who now visits the website (assuming it hasn't been updated), will see old prices, which is equivalent to new promotional material deliberately containing old prices. I say deliberate, because TFA states the restaurant was informed of its oversight. This is false advertising, and this is what they have been fined for.
What if it's a personal website that gives obsolte directions on how to get somewhere?
I'm not a New Zealander, but I doubt that their Fair Trading Act would apply to individuals who aren't running a business. It seems that all you're doing is scaremongering about what is a perfectly reasonable judicial decision.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
I think you missed the point.
We are protected here in NZ, from false advertising which may draw us into a store, restaurant etc. expecting low priced goods or special bargains.
The restaurant can host its website wherever it wants, it was still telling New Zealanders that it had specific items on its menu, which it no longer actually serves.
p.s. last time I dined there the staff were rude and incompetent, and they deserve to be straightened out in any way possible.
Depending on the place it would be about $20-35 (NZ$) for a main meal.
But a website is "iterative" too; you have to keep paying (monthly or yearly, in most cases) to keep it up. So in that sense it does require effort to maintain.
And I'm not even sure your test (maintenance effort) is a good one. Consider this. Around the corner from where I live is a deli that's been around since the 50s. On the brick wall facing the street, there's stenciled lettering promising heros for $2. When they raise the price, why shouldn't they have to change the mural too? "Because it isn't iterative" isn't a good reason, IMO.
NZ has a law the Fair Trading Act 1986. Part of it is around consumer protection. Basically the part he has been fined under is a section that states business must advertise prices, product spec etc correctly. It doesn't matter if it was in print or online it's advertising. He was warned about it and did nothing, so he was fined. It's not about Big brother jumping in. He broke a law (that pre-dates common usage of the Internet) and he got caught. A number of companies a year get fined for this sort of action, the only reason this got much of a headline is that it was the 1st web-based advertising to be fined under the Act.
Not a lawer, but the bit of law he was fined under only applies if promoting goods or services: Fair Trading Act 1986 Part 1 S13 SS(g): No person shall, in trade, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services,-- g) Make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of any goods or services; or
Why would you think that? It doesn't matter where the advertisement is physically stored, its still fake.
A few facts that you seem to have neglected to mention:
-No one made "big bucks". The Commerce Commission fined the restauraunt $3000. The court took $260 to cover court costs.
-The restauraunt knew that their site had caused one or more customers to visit the restauraunt on false pretenses.
From the article:
"The complaining customer had notified both the restaurant and the Restaurant Association of New Zealand that the website menu was out of date and misleading, but the operator, despite knowing about the issue, had done nothing to correct the website."
Also,
"His Honour agreed with the Commission that the breaches [i.e. false advertisement] were not inadvertent."
If I were running a restauraunt, and a customer pointed out a mistake in my advertising, I would have made their meal gratis. Then I would have posted a sign in the lobby letting people know of the mistake (in case more people were coming because of it), and got to work on correcting the advertising. After one week I would take down the sign. I believe most businesses are supposed to follow a similar procedure - at least here in California.
I skipped going to Best Buy to pick it up because walmart.com said I could get it at Walmart for $14.88.
No it didn't. It said you could order it from Walmart.com for $14.88.